show us dec 2017 to dec 2023

btc is 19 to 43 so 1000 would be around 2300

google
facebook
amazon
tesla

do the math bro


or better do btc dec 2012 to dec 2023

10 dollars to 43000

or

1,000 to 4,300,000

so btc is godlike 2012 to 2023

and great 2013 to 2023

and good 2017 to 2023

This would be better than treating transactions differently, in my opinion. However, it has to be implemented similarly to how XMR does it. Raising the block size would result in a reduction in the block subsidy; otherwise, whatever the max cap is will always be activated by greedy miners. This would lead to larger pools absorbing all available well-paying transactions, leaving smaller transactions with almost nothing.

If we have three pools—A (45%), B (45%), and C (10%)—block C, with the current protocol, is almost always guaranteed to mine 10% of the transactions. So, if there are 100 transactions paying 0.1BTC each, and each block can only take 10 of them, it would, on average, make 1 BTC out of that. However, if pools A and B can increase the limit from 10 to 15, pool C (which only finds 1 in 10 blocks) will be left with nothing but dust. The current way relies solely on luck; a small miner may hit a 5 BTC fee block, whereas large miners who find twice as many blocks may not get 5 BTC combined.

In other words, as of now, potential rewards from fees are based more on "luck and market conditions" than your hashrate. The other model will shift that, making it more about your hashrate and leaving little room for luck.

However, looking at Suzanne5223's comment above this one, if you read what user Kiba wrote right below Satoshi's post, he said:

Reading this 13 years later, it certainly makes a whole lot of sense; it's pretty difficult to do now.

@philipma1957

I agree that leaving a small amount of BTC for emergency cases like this in somebody else's custody may not be a bad idea. My only issue is with the KYC part; I know many people are okay with KYC-ing themselves, but I try to avoid that as much as I possibly can.

that's prorbably because poeple dont HODL these coins, they just use them to send value around fast and cheep.

There is a limit to those things
Unless you have some very loose inbound capacity  limits, you will be very limited using LN.

And as fees are already high now, you cannot increase your capacity now.

For bitcoin ecosystem, onchain transaction are still very important

It depends on how much $339 is worth
Considering how dedollarisation has been speeding up and how possible it is to see dollar value tanking hard, bitcoin reaching millions against dollar is not as far a you'd think. After all the current transaction fees of 1 sat/vbyte is about 300 in a bunch of currencies like the Colombian Peso

Hi everyone

wainting for the next spot ETF, I ask you: in case of fork, BR could chose only among further forks or among past and further forks?

I will appreciate if someone can link the BR documentation, if possibile.

Here (https://forkdrop.io/how-many-bitcoin-forks-are-there) there is a list of all BTC forks.

Thank you

Not so many posts with mixers content philipma  

Since the 28th of August:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5471372.msg63043618#msg63043618
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5437464.msg63238989#msg63238989
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5475589.msg63243635#msg63243635
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5478443.msg63347770#msg63347770
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5476162.msg63350282#msg63350282

Yes, but compared to the current policy, it's not correct to call it a "tax" or "discrimination", because nothing would have been changed and these transactions are even favoured because blocks would be, on the whole, emptier. And if the blocks are not full, like it was the case many times even in 2022/early 2023 before Ordinals came up, then there is no tax at all.

With the other part of your post, you are correct - it's possible that fee income goes down if demand is not high enough. To avoid this, in the block size debate models for a flexible block size were proposed, where the maximum weight is adjusted by demand or there are incentives to miners to adjust the blocksize carefully if needed. Monero (which was already mentioned in this thread) is an example how such a policy could look like. In contrast to Monero, however, Bitcoin needs slightly stricter parameters, because of Monero's tail supply which ensures they get rewards infinitely, so the necessity of a fee market isn't that pronounced on XMR.

So you could combine the "payment transaction discount" with a "flexible blocksize" policy. In this case, if the minimum max size is set too low, then the contract/Ordinals transactions could pay a "tax" indeed even compared to today. I think it would make sense, if such a change was decided, to ensure the minimum max block size is never lower than the current 4 vMB.

Anyway, such a policy is, again, meant as a possibility if there is general consensus in the commuity of the need for a block size increase, and that would be decided only if demand justifies it. Simply: instead of moving max block size "straight" to 8 MB, one could change the weight formula in a way simple payment transactions pay half the fees.

Even if the current fee situation is a bit annoying, in my opinion we have not reached the point, and my hope is we'll never need it due to sidechains/LN improvements.

If you invested $1,000, 10 years ago:   

Google: $5,000
Facebook: $6,000
Amazon: $7,500
Tesla: $25,000
Bitcoin: $44,000
BM

Good morning Bitcoinland. Still hovering around $44k.

Still hoping for a nice price boost before I have to sell some before going to Mexico in January.

Speaking of price boosts here are some more images from my archives:

 
 

Bitcoin smashing through the one dollar barrier followed by $1000 and then $10k. Somewhere I've got one for a hundred bucks. Maybe I'll find it. Also my read on the long-term circa 2016-7.

Ahh, the memories.

People absolutely need to use it, I'm myself using it for commercial transactions, but it isn't the solution to the problem either. Even currently, it takes a lot of money to open and close just one channel, and a lot of space if we are to dedicate a channel to each person.

Let's do some math. Regular opening and closing channel transactions are roughly 150 vB and 180 vB respectively. With block size being limited to 4 MvB, you can fit up to about 12 thousand channels in a block (the entire channel, with the closing transaction included). If 10 million people would want to join lightning, it'd take roughly 10M / 12k = 833 blocks. That's about 6 days of blocks filled to the top exclusively with lightning channels. For a billion people? 600 days. And that's under the hypothesis that:

- there will be no other on-chain transactions.
- no person will ever open more than a channel.
- opening and closing transactions will just have an input and two outputs respectively. (which is the minimum)

 Stop it, man.  You look silly.

You might have meant it as a joke but it's not. The enemies of Bitcoin can't easily attack the decentralized ledger reproduced across tens of thousands of computers. They also can't easily attack and put out of business the thousands of mining companies and small-time home miners. What they can do is exactly what you said: attack the value transfer. Make it difficult and expensive to use Bitcoin and then fud, through their media, what a waste of time and resources Bitcoin is.

Doesn't really help much because you still need to open and fund the channel and close it eventually. Both are on-chain transactions and require those currently expensive on-chain fees.

But, maybe that's the only cure. You cannot fit everyone on-chain. If history of cryptocurrencies has taught us something, it's this. I agree that a regulated block size increase might mitigate the problem, but only temporarily. The real solution has to come from a second layer, and sadly, I don't see lightning being that one.

Introducing censorship to lower the fees is definitely not an option. I prefer having terabytes of Ordinals blockchain than that.

This reminds me of the other discussion we had on the other part of the forum about where did that wall of 10 sat go, I said they could be preparing for a new wall, we now have a very similar wall at 2x the fee of that wall.




Foundry mined 35 blocks on 13, and the same on 14 dec, and then 50 blocks on 19 dec, you might be onto something here, but it's too early to judge if this is the result of intentionally downclocking gears to jam the network and then overclock to get the big blocks, this could work but needs some serious math.

So pretend I have 50% of the network hashrate, fees are 0.5 BTC/ block, I run S19 at 5 cents kWh

My daily expense for power is  3.6$ , I net 8$ (assuming fees are low and are only 0.5 btc or 8% of the block)

Now let's say I underclock my gear 30% down, I spend 2.52$ on power and net 5.6$, I need 2.4$ more profit for this to breakeven, % wise I need blocks to go from 6.75 btc to 8.775 BTC to break even.

Actually, at this point I am beyond break even, because there are other factors that I didn't take into consideration such as

1- I spend less on cooling
2- I actually net more than the above calcs given that my S19 would run more effienct at 70% than 100% (which I didn't do above because it's not simple and not worth the efforts)  
3- I increase the service life of my gears since now they run at a lower clock

But ya, let's just say I am at break-even, didn't gain anything if I manage to keep block fees at 8.775BTC

When fees go even higher, and blocks are now 10BTC a block, I go nuts and overclock gears, so that I get 60% of the network share, but then, 60% doesn't mean i am up 10% from my previous hashrate due to more cooling needed and less efficiency so let's say it's 5% more

so at stock settings my S19 now that blocks are 10 BTC would make 12.16$ (vs the previous 8$), with my overclocking I could end up making 14$ on it, which 75% more profit than without this whole game.

Of course, I could point to a few things that would make such plans fail, but we shall get to it later after hearing fellow miner's thoughts.

But that would end with a life full of no celebration in fear of the inevitable  
Gonna say it and nothing is going to change my mind, the last negative was a fluke, it never supposed to happen.

But this new jump, well, I guess it puts a fork in other theories also, sorry phillip
- we're at the end of the epoch and we're seeing 158 blocks per 24h,  so there is no back throttling in the last days, there is no throttling down to increase the fees either, we have 14 extra blocks, that's 10% increase in capacity for the last 24h and we're still looking at 512sat/vb last block fee as I type.

Again, this is just my opinion but all those schemes pools might try are nothing compared to FOMO.
There are less than 20vMB till under 100sat/vb,  no major fee wall, weekend in sight , xmas period close, the ones paying up are clearly not looking at the money, those are not manipulated by a few blocks missing (which is not happening) or by walls, it's FOMO. Less of a tech explanation but unfortunately I think closer to reality.

Explanation
Chartbuddy thanks talkimg.com

Block space needs to be limited to ensure bitcoin's long term survival.

Given that the block subsidy is halving every 4 years, it will not be long before the subsidy alone is negligible and certainly not enough to support even a fraction of the current hashrate. At that point, fees have to be sufficient to take over. For fees to be sufficient, block space has to be limited and there needs to be a full mempool and a competitive fee market. If we increase block size so everything can confirm at 1 sat/vbyte, then even for a (let's say) 16 MvB block you are still only talking about fees of 0.16 BTC.

If you want everything to confirm in the next block at tiny fees, then you need some other mechanism to pay miners once the subsidy is insufficient. That means either lifting the cap of 21 million and having constant inflation, or some other mining incentive like merged mining.

44k. Ready the  choppa  


"BlackRock has gone cash only. That’s basically a wrap. Debate over. In-kind will have to wait. It’s all about getting ducks in row bf holidays. Good sign."
https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1736906286388703444